When the Nicene Creed was translated into Latin, a total of three interpolations were inserted into the text.
- Deum de Deo. The Greek text has φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ “Light from Light, True God from True God.” But the Latin inserts the phrase “God from God” first: Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero. It is unclear what the origin of this interpolation is.
- incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto ex María Vírgine. The Greek text has one preposition in reference to both God the Holy Spirit and our Lady: σαρκωθέντα ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου. Thus the Greek says “incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,” whereas the Latin uses two different prepositions de (“from”) and ex (“out of”). This is seems to be in conformity with the more ancient Latin creed, the Apostles Creed, which uses the same prepositional phrase: conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine.
- qui ex Patre Filióque procédit. Again in conformity with Latin usage the Latin Nicene Creed inserts the infamous Filioque. Two other ancient Latin liturgical texts show this Latin phrase: the Quicumque Vult creed (“Athanasian”) and the Veni Sancte Spiritus hymn for Pentecost. The former is dated from the 5th or 6th centuries and includes this phrase: Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens (“The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; neither created, nor begotten, but proceeding”). The Hymn for Pentecost is of later origin, perhaps the 9th century, which includes a petition to the Holy Spirit as from both the Father and the Son.
When we consider that the Latin west had a total of three creeds which developed into their liturgy (Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian), we can perhaps begin to see how inoffensive it was to them to have these interpolations. Moreover, the larger political shift away from the Greek Roman Empire to the Frankish Roman Empire is the context which should not be ignored. It is vital for the Orthodox to understand that both the Latin and Greek traditions stand on their own and must be judged on their own terms. The Seven Ecumenical Councils were dominated by Greek concerns, and not all of their mentality (or even canons) were translated over to the Latins, who dealt with their own concerns in their own legitimate way. The Greek tradition must not be rejected for the Latin, nor the Latin for the Greek. However, because the Greek party which rejected the equality of the Latin tradition ultimately held power in the east, the schism was ultimately consummated. Orthodox Christians today state that they accept the equal authority of the Latin Fathers, yet they reject that the Latin Tradition as developed by the 9th century has equal authority with the Greek. On the other side, the Eastern Catholics have accepted an equal authority of Latin Fathers and Tradition as it was dogmatized at Florence in the Filioque decree.
Hmmm, the old adage at work here: The Catholics are,not always right but never wrong. From the period of the 7 ecumenical counsels to now, the Pope signed off on all the Ecumenical Council’s canons save one canon. You have not legs to stand on. It was the Latin church’s duty to understand what they were signing off on. Regardless if they were ever translated into Latin until recently or before the Catholics own them and must adhere to them. Period. The Pope signed off in agreement with the Greek “symbol” Creed. Then we hear quite after the fact that the Latins “thought” all along that the translation to Latin was true to the Greek, which is difficult to accept since problems with the filioque addition existed prior to the 8thC AD. The Catholics knew it didn’t conform, thus the Florence non-council occurred to convince the Orthodox that your understanding of the procession was true. It was not accepted in the east because of the filioque. Cry me a river. Suddenly you have all these defensive apologetics to try to convince how the Latin church was simply ignorant of the different creeds and the problem with the filioque as that is exactly why Florence was called. Of course, Card, Humboldt (sp) was the first to anathematize the Patriarch of Constantinople. Somewhat later, after efforts a reconciliation, the East removed the Pope from the dypticts This was important at the time. Basically it is the list of hierarchs included for prayer during the Litanies in the liturgy. The fact that the Eastern Catholics went along with allowing the filioque–something I would challenge as to how that occurred–, makes the Eastern Orthodox even more disturbed about these issues. Keep that point out if you are serious about dialogue on this topic. Be aware, the EOC knows all the issues concerning the schism and their position remains clear that Rome left the true church.
“….thou art Peter…and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail over it.” Matt 1618. :Not sure how the See of Peter can defect from the “True Church.”
The exaggerated claims of Papal supremacy and universal head of the Christian faith is not, as you already know, accepted by the EOC since the original leadership of Pope did not include authority over any jurisdiction other than the West, his primacy is one among equals.. As every serious student of this situation knows as agreed by Pope Paul VI, PJP2 both concurred that the problem is the Pope and the changes in the Papacy since the schism. If the point is to dialogue, then openness to both positions and the past compared to the present changes based on the 7 ecumenical council. What the statement above does is to simply turn off any discussion of unity, which has been a goal of the Popes since Paul VI and more so JP2. Both churches believe they hold the deposit of faith from the Apostles, complete and whole. The Latin church may make is weary claims, but saying so doesn’t make it so. The position of many in the EOC is that unity comes when the RCC repents and returns to the one true church. These arguments don’t lead to respectful discussion.
Thank you for your respectful comments my brother. And yes I would agree with you that simply quoting a Scripture doesn’t help the situation. And you make some good comments on your first comment regarding the legal binding nature of the Ecumenical comments. But let me first ask you this. You say the phrase “is not accepted by the EOC.” How do you prove that something is not accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Churches? What legal binding nature is in force among the Orthodox for this or any other such doctrine? You say the non-Filioque creed was binding on the west per an Ecumenical Council, how do you prove that any doctrine not covered in an Ecumenical Council is binding among the Orthodox?
There is nothing wrong with the Filioque. You have to operate on the assumption that only an ecumenical council can be a supreme authority on religion, but there weren’t even any ecumenical councils from the close of the Apostolic Age to the early 4th century. How did Christians form creeds in the meantime? How did they defend orthodoxy without ecumenical councils? Why wouldn’t the First See have the authority to modify the Creed? And later ecumenical councils of the Church sanctioned its use. The Filioque is perfectly sound and orthodox in the Latin way of explaining the Trinity; by running around and insinuating it’s heretical you might actually be causing people to develop actually heretical beliefs about the Trinity.
Moreover, plenty of Eastern saints employed the filioque as the Latin West does in their theology. They didn’t see a problem with positing Father and Son as a single principle of the Holy Spirit.
The Papacy is of divine institution. God wills it to exist for the stability of the Church. The Ecumenical Councils contain plenty of discussions with bishops openly acknowledging the exceptional prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff. Pope St. Leo the Great about 450 A.D. is perfectly clear about the very special perogatives of the Apostolic See and its role in Church Order, which of course existed before any ecumenical council as an ecumenical council presupposes the existence of a Church order.
The First See had to do with Church Order in the first millenium. It did not give the First See the right to change accepted theology. The Filioque was refuted by the First See itself at some point. The use of the Filioque incurs the anathemas of the Ecumenical Councils forbidding changes to the Creed. How then can the Filioque not be a full blown heresy worthy of excommunication? The First See is not a divine institution. The First See in its push for Supremacy went directly against Christ’s own words..do no lord it over one another. Does Christ contradict Himself? Promising lordship, supremacy, vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff, infallibility on the one hand and on the other.. do not lord over one another as do the Gentiles. The truth is that The Church against which Hades will not prevail is built on Christ, not on Peter.
Hi Anne,
Are you aware that preeminent Eastern Orthodox scholars and saints contradict what you are saying?
I agree with one thing: the First See has no right to change theology. That is absolutely certain. However, do you understand the thing that you are criticizing? This essay might help in understanding: https://meaningofcatholic.com/2019/06/29/on-the-limits-of-papal-infallibility/
With respect,
Timothy
Timothy,
To be fair, the issue given by our brethren of the Greek schism is that the creed could never be changed according to Chalcedon. It represents for them a binding legal unity, a reality that was affirmed by various popes, notably Leo III, who inscribed the creed (without the Filioque) in Greek and Latin for posterity. In the sense of dogma and legal right, the Filioque is perfectly legitimate. In the sense of charity to the Greeks, it is an unfortunate thing and a provocation to them. However, the context of the Filioque’s confession at Rome in the 11th century must also be understood, which is the subject of a future post.
Hi there! This blog post could not be written any better! Looking through this post reminds me of my previous roommate! He constantly kept preaching about this. I will forward this information to him. Pretty sure he will have a very good read. Thanks for sharing!|
Sure thing. God bless!
The article contains a very good summary, but it is quite confusing to talk about ‘inserted interpolations.’ An issue with analyzing translations in a third language is that it is hard to avoid missing certain nuances and trying to find a common denominator virtually guarantees that some meanings will be lost.
Re. 2.: The meaning of the preposition εκ is vaguer than that of Latin de. While the former suggests source or origin, the latter indicates the person or place from which something is taken or departs; ex strongly suggests physical origin. It is not all the same. The Greek did not require to stress how unlike the relationships between the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the Blessed Virgin are, whereas the Latin version strives for precision.
Re. 3.: Again, the Greek version leaves one aspect (the relation between the Holy Ghost and the Son) undefined, while the Latin one describes it. Here, however, the verb prōcēdō has a broader meaning than ἐκπορεύω. The obvious Latin addition, likely enforced under the Frankish influence, was problematic for the Greeks but, apparently, necessary for the theologians whose Latin background made it difficult for them to access the Greek works refuting Arianism.
There is one Church and one universal Tradition. My personal view (I was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church but when living outside of my home Province I prefer to worship with the Melkites rather than Novus Ordo) is that the Church of Rome gives out one kind of Catholic theology and pastoral practice that, however containing diverse renditions, subsists in a wider context. And this context is based on the (originally) Greek tradition (hence, no Catholic can accuse the followers of the Russian or Antiochene Churches of heresy as long as they do not explicitly deny any Catholic dogma). How I see the issue is that ‘the Latin tradition’ is subordinate to Greek, albeit not hierarchically but rather in the sense of set theory and formal logic.